harrypotterfandomcom-20200223-history
Talk:Garrick Ollivander
HBP film appearance? Is it possible that Ollivander has an appearance in the HBP film adaption, this picture shows a man with a black sack covering his head being kidnapped by Death Eater Fenrir Greyback, could this possibly be Ollivander? The shop in which the man has been taken from has the same exterior to Ollivander's shop. (Two rounded windows and a rectangle shaped door in the middle) What do you think? Patr0nus 16:10, 24 May 2009 (UTC) :Well from what i've heard it is supposed to be him -Smonocco 16:15, 24 May 2009 (UTC) ::There is another masked Death Eater exiting the shop, which supports the theory that this picture depicts the kidnapping of Ollivander, although the man could still be a new character invented strictly for the movie. ★ Starstuff (Owl me!) 23:49, 24 May 2009 (UTC) :I already saw the movie, Base on what i've seen and heard, While the trio having a detour at Diagon Alley, they went inside the shop where the Death Eaters got this masked man and they discussed that it was Ollivander's shop, And besides Mr. Ollivander, Is there another important person from that shop whom Death Eaters are shows their interest? I believe, it was Ollivander. But i say, my belief is not important. It is what you think and the informations from official main source are more important to clarify this issue. --ÈnŔîčö (Send me an Owl!) 19:01, 20 July 2009 (UTC) :Another proof that it was Ollivander is the latest article from Warner Bros. and VFXWorld: VFXWorld investigates Half-Blood Prince natural effects --ÈnŔîčö DC (Send me an Owl!) 15:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC) A simple reading of Deathly Hallows would show that it is extremely likely that it was indeed Ollivander who was kidnapped on-screen. Sings-With-Spirits 00:32, 1 August 2009 (UTC) Older than Dumbledore? In the main article this line is found: "It is unknown how old he is, but in conversation with Harry Potter, he discusses making a wand for Lord Voldemort, who would have received his wand around 1937, making him older than Dumbledore." This does not follow: Dumbledore was born in 1881 and we do not know the circumstances surrounding the Riddle wand sale; for all we know, Riddle's wand could have been Ollivander's first sale, which would make him 17 or 18 at the time, making his year of birth 1919 or 1920. Assuming 1920 (for sheer convenience), he would have been 71 years old when he sold Harry his wand in 1991, which is consistent with his appearance both in the books and in the film. Sings-With-Spirits 00:30, 1 August 2009 (UTC) :I agree that there is not enough evidence to support the statement that Ollivander is older than Dumbledore. However, wandlore is a very esoteric branch of magic, and I don't think Ollivander could've gone into making wands straight out of Hogwarts. It takes three years to train an Auror, and, given all the complexities of wandlore, I imagine it would take just as long, if not longer, to train as a wandmaker. So I think that, if Riddle's wand was Ollivander's first sale, he couldn't have been younger than 20 or 21 at the time. ★ Starstuff (Owl me!) 21:36, 14 August 2009 (UTC) ::Thing is that there is no evidence at all that Mr. Ollivander himself made the wand; we know he sold it, but not who made it... for all we know the Phoenix Feather wands could have been sitting in the shelves for a thousand years! Sings-With-Spirits 02:52, 22 August 2009 (UTC) He has had the shop for ages though, there probably were other's running the shop in the Ollivander shop before him because in one of the books it says its been going for hundreds of years --[[User:Bongo2009|'Bongo2009']] [[User_talk:Bongo2009|'Talk']] 21:45, 14 August 2009 (UTC) :Indeed, we have to assume that the Ollivander's shop is a family operation and that Mr. Ollivander is just the latest proprietor and wandwright. Sings-With-Spirits 02:52, 22 August 2009 (UTC) :: I wish I could explain my feeling that Ollivander is actually centuries old, if not two or three thousand years old. There's nothing to support it, but then there's nothing to support the whole potterverse as it is... Ngebendi 13:21, March 19, 2010 (UTC) :::Mr. Ollivander cannot possibly be "centuries old", much less "two or three thousand years old" because we do know that Nicholas Flamel's age of 660+ was considered extraordinary by wizarding world standards. Considering that Dumbledore was 115 when he died, Madame Hooch was around 100 when we saw her and that ages over 100 are considered old (see Aunt Muriel and Bathilda Bagshot), it stands to reason that Mr. Ollivander is, at the most, about as old as these luminaries, so even if we assume he is older than Dumbledore (which I doubt, given his behaviour - and resilience - in Deathly Hallows), then he should be in the realm of 115-150, not even two centuries. I would place him as younger.Sings-With-Spirits 00:33, March 23, 2010 (UTC) :::: The Flamels are unusual at over six hundred (though they're still not the oldest wizards ever: see Barry Winkle, who, I suspect, had some other magic of his own akin to the Philosopher's Stone), but that leaves plenty of room for Ollivander to be up to 300 years old, an age which we know wizards in the Harry Potter universe sometimes reach without it being considered extraordinary, though they're unusually pretty senile by then. For example, Armando Dippet. :::: There's no particular canonical evidence for it, but my belief is that Ollivander is probably around 130; somewhat older than Dumbledore, but not too improbably ancient by wizarding standards. --Scrooge MacDuck (talk) 12:30, February 2, 2019 (UTC) :I persnolly do get the feeling that Ollivander might older than Dumbledore but we have no proof of this and therefore the statement that he is older than Dumbldore should be removed -- Unsigned Dean Thomas relationship There is no foundation in canon for the following sentence: Ollivander was also friendly with Dean Thomas, although the two never had a special bond, as Ollivander did not make Dean a new wand, making Dean somewhat jealous of Luna's gift. ' At best, it could be said that their imprisonment together bade Ollivander friendlier towards Thomas, but we do not have any proof (except by ommission) that he did not make Thomas a new wand. Indeed, we do not even know that Thomas needed a wand, as he might have been able to recover his. Furthermore, since there is no foundation, there is also no way to know that he was "jealous of Luna's gift".Sings-With-Spirits 17:12, April 24, 2010 (UTC) It mentions in the book, when they are at shell cottage, that Luna is in the backyard playing with her wand while Dean watched her somewhat grumpily because he did not get a new one from Ollivander. I can't recall whether or not Dean actually says this out right to Harry or anyone else, but I know it's mentioned. However, it cannot be assumed from this that Ollivander and Dean did not have some kind of bond, so it still warrants removal. J-man Zelda Fan 17:28, April 24, 2010 (UTC) Dean has a wand by the time that the Battle of Hogwarts but does not seem to have one after his capture. I doubt that Dean would go on the run without his wand, if he could help it. Ollivander made Luna a wand soon after being moved to Muriel's - not sure how many wands he made after that point since Harry left soon after Luna got her new wand. Though we can't say for sure, odds are that Ollivander did make Dean a wand eventually (ie before we see him again). Lupin did say that there were other wandmakers, though. However, by this point in the book, access to wands were fairly limited - meaning that other wand makers may have been intimidated into not making wands for people who could not prove their blood purity (or risking their lives making unauthorized wands). The death of Gregorvitch, a fellow wandmaker, would make the former more likely, but we can't say for certain. ```` :I'm positive Olivander did not fashion Dean a wand at all. See these excerpts from ''Deathly Hallows: :Reading this passage we learn that Dean was still wandless in the late evening of 1 May, just before the start of the Battle of Hogwarts at midnight on 2 May. If would be unlikely that Ollivander had given him a wand in the meantime, as the wandmaker is not mentioned to have been anywhere near Hogwarts during the battle. Still, when we read a bit further that :it seems only logical that Dean took the wand he was using from one of the fighters, or one of the dead. -- [[User:Seth Cooper| '''Seth Cooper ]][[User talk:Seth Cooper| owl post!]] 13:32, June 3, 2012 (UTC) Ollivander older than Dumbledore I support the theory that Ollivander is about 150 or 130 but most defintly older thand Dumbledore. First name What is the source for Ollivander's first name being Garrick?? -Danniesen :Pottermore, apparently. I haven't received my entry email yet, but once I do I'll try to confirm that. -- [[User:Seth Cooper| Seth Cooper ]][[User talk:Seth Cooper| owl post!]] 19:47, August 15, 2011 (UTC) ::What's the go with referencing Ollivander on other pages? I see it often as "Garrick Ollivander", shouldn't it just be "Ollivander" as he's known in the books?Derpherpherp 05:35, March 5, 2012 (UTC) :::I think as long as we know the name from any source, we're good to go for using it in articles, even if it isn't one that's mentioned in the books. I've certainly seen this done in other articles with references to characters whose first name isn't mentioned e books, but comes from another source. That said, I'm pretty sure that you can still use simply "Ollivander" if you want, just make sure to link to Garrick Ollivander. ("Ollivander" redirects there, but we prefer when possible not to create unnecessary redirects.) ProfessorTofty 05:58, March 5, 2012 (UTC) :::Pottermore gives Ollivander's first name as Garrick and lists his mother as being muggle-born - which is why he knew lots about the elder wand but (like Tom Riddle) nothing about the three brothers. If you combine both the Ollivander entry and the wandwood entries, you get the names of Garrick's father and grandfather, but not his mother or grandmother or two children. Both Luna and Garrick have silver eyes that tend not to blink. Luna lost a mother and Garrick lost a daughter. Drawing a connection between these facts is pure speculation at this point, though JKR did mention Ghost plots that never made it into the books because they were too peripheral to the main story. Garrick, Gerbold and Gervaise all have the name element geri-gari meaning spear, though, despite the superficial resemblance, Geraint doesn't being related to the Welsh-translated-by-the-French King Arthur saga. That none of the women are named hides which families the Ollivanders married into - or even hints in this direction. :::Geraint Ollivander (Garrick's ancestor) Gerbold Octavius Ollivander (Gerrick's-granddad) Gervaise Ollivander (Gerrick's-dad) 06:56, June 3, 2012 (UTC) Bad attitude? A less savoury aspect of his personality is that his fascination with wandlore sometimes eclipses his sense of right and wrong; he is so fascinated with what a powerful wizard can do when matched with the right wand that he becomes detached from the good or evil nature of their actions. (and further sentences) That's definitely not true. He knows exactly that Voldemort is a murderous and simply bad person, he does not admire him, that is nonsense. He is just fascinated about the imagination of a dark wizard with such a wand, just like we all are fascinated with tyrants, warmongers and mass murderers like Cesar, Napoleon and Hitler, although we do not admire those people (none of those men were a good man but we are fascinated). Or did you never thought things like "wow, how did Napoleon do all those stuff?" People who are occupying themselves with tyrants always do have some sort of "respect" to those tyrants. Ollivander has a sense of right and wrong just like every other person, but he is not a mainstream-compatible do-gooder. Like Ollivander said (I try to quote): "He Voldemort did great things. Terrible things, yes, but great" (If I'm right he said it in the very first book), and that is just the truth. To say that someone did "great" things doesn't mean that those things are good, he even said they were terrible. It is okay to say Hitler did great things if you mean it in a sense like "notable/substancial/eminent/major", and that's what Ollivander did. Voldemort's activities were major, that is a fact. So, they were great. Ollivander knows that and is fascinated with that like every other man on earth would be (money quote Ron: "Don't say his name, show him some respect"), but again, that doesn't mean even slightly, that he has no sense of right or wrong.--Fußball-Lexikon (talk) 04:10, October 22, 2013 (UTC) Age? In Deathly Hallows, when Harry has a vision of Grindelwald being tortured by Voldemort he describes him as being just as old and just as thin as Mr. Ollivander. Should we change Ollivander's possible birth year to 1882 like Grindelwald's or at least say around the 1880s? In the copy I have he says it on page 468 chapter 23: The Malfoy Manor. You're only supposed to blow the bloody doors off! (talk) 07:59, November 16, 2013 (UTC) I have to agree with Nick O'Demus - Harry is describing how the post-torture Ollivander looks, not the chronological fact of his age. 09:48, November 16, 2013 (UTC) I still think that's a big assumption to make. He never compared their conditions or described Ollivander as looking older, nonetheless I see that I'm outvoted here so I'll step down. You're only supposed to blow the bloody doors off! (talk) 17:44, November 16, 2013 (UTC) Death I know this is probably completely unfounded, but Ollivander is thin and frail and elderly in Deathly Hallows, where we last see him looking very weak despite his treatment, in April of 1998. The Pottermore entry for Ollivander is in past tense, while the notice of his birthday remains neutral as to what activities he is currently engaging in. Of course, as they didn't mention much for Hermione, Mrs Weasley or any of the others on the Insider and Ollivander's Pottermore entry describes things he already did, that isn't saying much, but still, it's possible that Ollivander died sometime between 1998 and 2014, the time Pottermore entries take place. Then again, his profession is his obsession, not was, so maybe not. --Hunnie Bunn (talk) 20:49, March 15, 2014 (UTC) No signs of a struggle? I'm confused about why there weren't any signs of a struggle at the Ollivander's shop after Garrick's kidnapping. It feels like Rowling included it simply as a throwaway line to make readers think Ollivander had willingly joined Voldemort, because DH (as well as the scene in the HBP screenshot) prove otherwise. General Ironbeak (talk) 22:48, January 20, 2015 (UTC) Why is nobody answering? Do I have to make an essay of this to get a response? General Ironbeak (talk) 01:16, January 30, 2015 (UTC) OK, somebody, PLEASE answer! I'm sick of being ignored around here except when people revert my edits. Argulor (talk) 22:11, January 9, 2016 (UTC) Appearence in GOF Film I know for a fact that John Hurt filmed a scene for GOF. Here is a report about him being in the film. http://www.snitchseeker.com/harry-potter-news/hurt-to-return-as-ollivander-in-goblet-of-fire-13201/ I wonder why it was never released? General Ironbeak (talk) 22:48, January 20, 2015 (UTC) Can we please include info about it (if there isn't any already)? Argulor (talk) 22:11, January 9, 2016 (UTC) Skirmish at Malfoy Manor and Escape Skirmish at Malfoy Manor and Escape The .jpg photo link needs to be fixed to actually show a picture or should be removed. If somebody knows how to fix this in source I would love for you to comment and help teach me to fix links like this. Drmrc (talk) 04:43, June 26, 2016 (UTC) Age The page says 1909 for his date of birth, however he'd still be at Hogwarts given his September 25th birthdate. To fit, he has to have a 1907 date of birth at the latest. *1907 -- born * 1918 (11, but not old enough because the year starts September 1st and he doesn't turn 11 until September 25th.) * 1919 - 1920 -- first year * 1920 - 1921 -- second year * 1921 - 1922 -- third year * 1922 - 1923 -- fourth year * 1923 - 1924 -- fifth year * 1924 - 1925 -- sixth year * 1925 - 1926 -- seventh year. --HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 23:37, January 11, 2017 (UTC) :But there is nothing saying that you have to finish Hogwarts to start a business (think of the Weasely twins). Technically we don't even know if you have to be of age, that's just a working assumption. As the wand permit application is from December 1926, the strictest interpretation is that Garrick would have to have been 17 by this time, which he would have if he was born in or before 1909 and had his 17th (or greater) birthday on 25 Sep 1926. --Ironyak1 (talk) 00:26, January 12, 2017 (UTC) Ollivander says this "when my time came to take over the family business. This I have done." on Pottermore. That implies he inherited the company from his father -- and he was probably older than 17 at the time. He is a "wandmaker" in 1926, implying he has inherited the company and is of age. --HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 00:41, January 12, 2017 (UTC) :While states that he inherited the company from his father Gervaise, it says nothing of his age at the time. The full quote: :"Early in my career, as I watched my wandmaker father wrestling with substandard wand core materials such as kelpie hair, I conceived the ambition to discover the finest cores and to work only with those when my time came to take over the family business. This I have done." :This hints at some time being invested to find the finest cores before taking over the family business, but this effort could overlap his time at Hogwarts. Similarly "early in his career" is possibly while he is still a youth at school as it's a vocational training in a family business and not dependent on Hogwarts' formal education or graduation (say like becoming an Auror before 1998). :Ultimately, I think his birth date is substantially earlier than either 1909 or 1907, but I still maintain that any presumption of having to finish Hogwarts before taking over the business is just that, and the strictest interpretation of the facts is that he could be born as late as 25 Sep 1909 to be "likely 17" by 6 Dec 1926 as seen on the MACUSA wand permit form. --Ironyak1 (talk) 18:39, January 13, 2017 (UTC)